Talk:Kurdish–Turkish conflict/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Who is Responsible for this Stupidity?

In Turkey there is a conflict between Turkey and PKK which is a terrorist group recognized by NATO as terrorist. So, the topic must be "Turkey - Kurdish Terrorists Conflict".

Do you say the war between Al Kaide and USA as "American - Arabian conflict?"

don't be disgusting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.110.171.196 (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Stupid infobox

Why do we have the names of Turkish Presidents, Prime Ministers and Chiefs of General Staff across the names of some PKK assassins who leave bombs in primary school gardens and kill teachers and doctors so that the Kurdish children grow up unhealthy and ignorant as themselves! PKK is considered universally a terrorist organisation, just as ETA and FARC but we do not see such idiocies in the WP articles on those terrorist organizations. What is wrong here? I need an impartial (if it is at all possible between a country and a terrorist group) WP editor to step ahead and boldly remove this insult to civil society... --E4024 (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I propose an infobox similar to that of Arab–Israeli conflict, where instead of every single prime minister since 1948, only those who were the generals in a war (not the general of the army, but rather during the war itself) or the commanders of a group are listed. How does this sound? --Jethro B 22:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I had simplified the infobox in this version, yet the editor, Kermanshahi, brutally reverted it without so much as an edit summary. --Mttll (talk) 07:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted Kermanshahi since there wasn't any explanation for the edit, and if Kermanshahi would like to explain themselves, they should do so here. I think the version is a good start, albeit a bit slim. --Jethro B 15:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

E4024, the answer to your question is that the articles on ETA and FARC use a different template, {{infobox war faction}} for a single war party, while this article has {{Infobox military conflict}} where you can actually list leaders of two opposing factions. That said, I don't see a need to list every involved prime minister or PKK leader in the infobox unless they are directly referred to in the article text. After all it is the very purpose of an infobox to provide an overview of the article content, and not to present additional information. De728631 (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As for Mttl's edits. If he had just stuck to the minizing of Turkish leaders section, OK. But he insisted on removing Turkish militias from the infobox, also 18 was turned into 28 for no reason + the source name was vandalised to make it a broken link. My revert was also aimed at a very unconstructive and POV edit by E4024 which stated "he head of rhe Turkish Armed Forces does not "claim", gives facts" i.e. everything Turkish generals say is fact, even if disputed, everything others say is lie, should not be on article. This is clearly POV, trying to censor information he doesn't like, trying to present unverifiable claims as pure fact, soley because he "likes" these guys.Kermanshahi (talk) 16:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Listen here now.

• You say it's okay to minimize the leader section, yet you revert the whole thing. Are you being just lazy or do you think you are the owner of this article?
• None of those organizations are "militia". I explained why I removed them in my edit summaries.
• I never turned any 18 to 28 neither did I vandalize any source name. Get your facts straight. --Mttll (talk) 08:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Yet all of this was vandalized in the version you were representing. You may have not done it yourself, yes. But I can see from your edit pattern, you NEVER revert any vandalism by Turkish users on these pages. As for the mimizing Turkish leader section, I don't think it's really necessary either. Why do that? The only I've heard given is that E4024 considers it an insult to have his brave great glorious heroes of turkish generals and presidents to be in the same infobox as some evil kurdish terrorists. Well, that's not a good argument.Kermanshahi (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

This passive aggressive emotionalism will get you nowhere. I suggest you stop blind-reverting when yourself have to admit there is nothing wrong with the changes. --Mttll (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, I don't really understand E4024's complaint other than that he is saying he terribly hates the PKK and would like for the article to have a venomously anti-PKK POV. Well, that's just plainly against wikipedia rules E4024. Also, clearly he has never read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch or else he would have known that "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided". Or maybe he does know that and just doesn't care, as long as the article includes as many derogatory terms towards Kurds as possible.Kermanshahi (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

E4024 - please do not remove statements by other editors on talk pages. Also, as Kermanshahi said, you should do your best to refrian from POV-motivated edits or reasons on talk pages, as we need to use RS and maintain WP:NPOV, especially on contentious topics. --Jethro B 18:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Weird

The military size of Turkey is absolutely wrong, because not all soldiers are engaged in the conflict. The size of the police is also wrong, because a policeman in Trabzon (for instance) isn't engaged in the conflict.

So the size of both of these should be dramatically reduced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Needbrains (talk • contribs) 09:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually the conflict takes place all over Turkey. Mainly in the South-East but there have also been attacks in Western Turkey and insurgent activity in central and black sea region. Therefore we have no other option but to name entire military's size.Kermanshahi (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

This whole article is made by pro-pkk people. It only describes the achievements op the pkk and not what the TAF achieved, pretty sad... Neutral article my *** — Preceding unsigned comment added by Needbrains (talk • contribs) 13:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

CIA captured Ocalan? Yeah right Needbrains (talk) 12:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

'Do not remove other's edits'

You keep removing mine and others edits! But i don't care anymore. Bye Needbrains (talk) 12:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

To Kermanshahi

Care to explain this revert of yours? --Mttll (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You vandalised the infobox. allegedly is put there only for NPOV reasons, if I think you use it as excuse to delete information than we can remove that alleged part completely. Kermanshahi (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Look, I don't even know what you are talking about, but here are some facts:

• Neither Grey Wolves nor the so-called Turkish Revenge Brigade are a belligerent party in the conflict between TAF and PKK.
• "Deep state", JİTEM and Counter-Guerrilla are supposed to be interconnected organizations; the former being a larger set that includes the other two and the latter being active before 1980. JİTEM is the one that's alleged to be a belligerent party.

If you don't know what you are doing, don't resort to random reverts. --Mttll (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not a conflict between TAF and PKK but a civil war between Turks and Kurds. These groups are Turks fighting the Kurds. They are involved and part of the conflict.Kermanshahi (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

If you tried reading the article, you would see that it describes the conflict between Turkey and PKK in each and every single section. Having the infobox contradict the rest of the article is poor quality editing. --Mttll (talk) 09:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)